Stranded passengers. This decision could be very far reaching

[Sober Lark]

The airlines will self-insure against 'extraordinary circumstances' but I'd say it will be a brave person who decides to close air space in a hurry next time.

Does anyone have a link to the wording of today's judgement?

[JetMender]

This ruling plus EU261 will lead to ticket prices increasing for everyone & may lead to some airlines folding if there are excessive successful claims (backdated for 6 years).

[Loose rivets]

PS. Mind you, I bet he regrets taking a measly £900 claim to court, and for that - serves him right!

sooty, Since he'd already paid millions in claims, I think he may well have separated this one from the pack and used it as a test case.


There might be a case for passengers being able to purchase delay insurance. A "We take full responsibility until you're there" V "If you're stuck, don't come moaning to us."

[AtomKraft]

I think this is a good decision.

When you sell someone a ticket- you should take ownership of the job. If you can't fly them for some reason (whether or not that reason is under your control) you should 'look after' them if they get stuck.

Of course, there is a cost to this- for ALL airlines.

So put the bloody prices up a bit!

They're far too low at the moment anyway, and in this case ALL airlines can add a bit to allow for their 'duty of care' towards their customers.

Charging folk a fiver to go to bloody Poland is just stupid.

[SeenItAll]

In the US, airlines are uniformly not responsible for customer expenses due to weather-caused delays and cancellations. Is this different in the EU? If a huge storm shuts down my destination airport, is the airline responsible for accommodating me until it reopens?

I would think that volcanic eruptions should be considered the same as unfortunate weather.

[Good Business Sense]

...... earthquake, tsunami, ..... meteorite ...... where is this all going to stop !

Europe is slowly grinding to a halt. You'd have to be insane to start a business these days between the banks, health and safety, the service from public servants, including the Campaign Against Aviation, and now ... the wrath of god !

[Tableview]

I have nothing but contempt for Ryanair but I have much, much more contempt for the EU.
What a bunch of fools.

I couldn't have put it better myself, at least not in words that wouldn't get me a ban here!

[EnxAero]

To be honest I quite agree with ATC Watcher. If the airlines did not have pay any of the expenses they would not have any incentive to get you to your destination whenever the circumstances improve.
So imagine the airport closes for two days, and there is one airline that flies there once per day with an 80% occupancy. Once the airport reopens, It would take more than a week to clear up the backlog unless schedule extra flights. You may arrive to your destination after your original return date, and to make things worst, the airline may refuse to refund the return leg because “the return flight operated as scheduled, and you did not arrive to the airport in time” (it happened to me as well).

[CelticRambler]

Originally Posted by AtomKraft

When you sell someone a ticket- you should take ownership of the job. If you can't fly them for some reason (whether or not that reason is under your control) you should 'look after' them if they get stuck.

That's all very well if you're selling an extended stay in a faraway place with the flights to get you there and back included. In the old days, Jack and Jill went to a travel agent to sort out their trip to the top of the hill. Now they like to save money by booking all the bits themselves.

Seeing as Ryanair most other airlines these days are selling one-way tickets to private individuals and nothing in-between, why should they be held responsible for Jack and Jill's failure to evaluate the risk of their return travel being disrupted and decide on an adequate level of protection?

Besides, assigning responsibility for any kind of disruption to the airlines in this way is discriminatory because some of the passengers on any affected flight will be on their outward journey. What claim for compensation can they make?

I heard the Ryanair spokesman's interview this afternoon. It sounded to me like this was a 900€ claim that they're quite pleased about - because it paves the way for Ryanair to go head-to-head with (for example) French unions going on strike and expecting MO'L to pick up the tab for conditions that really are not at all exceptional. I smell blood.

[Ixixly]

AtomKraft, are you insane? So you're car that you expect to drive on the road is unable to get you from A to B because the weather has turned bad and the rain is far too heavy to be driving through, will you then go sue your Car Manufacturer for selling you a vehicle that was not able to convey you where you wanted to go when you wanted to go? Absolutely not, because that would be ridiculous.

The airlines did the right thing by grounding their aircraft due to safety. Those who had bought properly priced tickets with reputable Airlines were most likely looked after, those who paid Sweet F*** All for their ticket and expected to have everything thrown in anyway got SFA, funny thing that!!

These idiots want to pay less for the airfare than the cost of the taxi to get them to the airport and then whinge and b***h and moan when it turns out their ticket doesn't include any of the stuff, like covering costs for delays, that higher prices tickets and/or insurance would cover.

[ExXB]

Some points;

Cryan charges £2/2€ per passenger ticket to cover the cost of their obligations under Regulation 261. They say they carried 79.6 million last year but that's passenger sectors (average ticket is out and back) so actual number of surcharges would be half that. Say €40 million. Even with the Volcano their expenses cannot be anything like this.

When the regulation was being written nobody (airlines/EC/EP) considered that a multi-day closure of airspace was even possible. Never happened before. (The Regulation is being considered for amendment by EC/EP and it could include, in hindsight, such provisions but don't hold your breath)

The Courts have agreed that the closure was an 'extraordinary circumstances' meaning that compensation for cancellation (€200~600) was not applicable. The courts have ruled correctly that, as written, the airlines do have an obligation for care (reasonable cost of meals and accommodation) and rebooking/ rerouting.

Yes the railroads have a similar obligation; See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...14:0041:EN:PDF . Article 18 2 (b) clearly states an obligation to cover hotel costs for a stay of 'one or more' nights. I know the Swiss Federal Railroad regularly covers hotel costs when connections to last services are missed.

The airlines in theory could insure against these costs, but I don't know of any that actually do. Insurance companies expect to receive more in premiums than they pay out in costs. This means that even if it was offered it would be so expensive that no airline would be tempted. (The insurance companies would set their premiums based on a worst-case scenario - something like what happened in 2010)

Perhaps passengers could buy their own insurance, but I doubt if they could find a policy that covers all-risks. And why would they (to/from/within EU)? The EU requires the airline to cover these costs.

What I expect we will see now is other airlines adopting Cryan's '261 Surcharge'. Great money maker and would more than likely offset the costs they are required to cover, by law.

[Tableview]

The airlines did the right thing by grounding their aircraft due to safety. Those who had bought properly priced tickets with reputable Airlines were most likely looked after, those who paid Sweet F*** All for their ticket and expected to have everything thrown in anyway got SFA, funny thing that!!

The airlines had no choice. Airspace was closed.

As it happens, I, along with tens of thousands of others, was stranded in London at the time. I happened to be doing some work for an airline. They looked after me magnificently, offering to extend my contract until I could leave, and putting me up at their expense in a world class London hotel.

I had a flight out on EZY, which was cancelled. When airspace opened, I booked first available to my destination, on another carrier. I got a full refund of my ticket from EZY, plus my out of pocket accommodation expenses until they were picked up by the other airline.

I realise that had I been flying on Ryanair I would be telling a very different story. That's why I won't fly Ryanair.

[Sober Lark]

Is there any possibility we could use this friendly thread to explore the pros and cons of this EU ruling and how it affects the airline industry as a whole without the tiresome chirping of the Ryanair bashing brigade?

The official press release for the 31 Jan ruling can be found here http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...cp130008en.pdf

[tb10er]

Compensation

I can't wait for the day when solicitors and claims companys are waiting outside the Arrivals area with a board saying "Have you been delayed?".

It's bad enough being bombarded with the phone calls from so-called accident companys who "care about your well-being" and that "there is money for you".

[TractorBoy]

I've been reading the EC directive 261 (exciting I know ) and Article 5 clearly states that in the event of cancellation, a passenger is entitled to assistance and compensation (Articles 9 and 7).

Article 7 includes;

3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay
compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that
the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances
which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable
measures had been taken.

But article 9 does not.


However, in the initial preamble the following 2 paragraphs are

14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating
air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases
where an event has been caused by extraordinary
circumstances which could not have been avoided even
if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances
may, in particular, occur in cases of political
instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with
the operation of the flight concerned, security risks,
unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that
affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist
where the impact of an air traffic management decision
in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day
gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the
cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even
though all reasonable measures had been taken by the
air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

Surely this would cover it as well..... It looks like the judges have totally ignored the initial sections.

[ExXB]

Tb10er

I can't wait for the day when solicitors and claims companys are waiting outside the Arrivals area with a board saying "Have you been delayed?".

There would be no point, as the Regulation only talks about delays in departure, not arrival. Contrast that with the rail Regulation (linked above) which refers to both.

[ExXB]

TractorBoy

The preamble to the Regulation has no legal force, it is taken as guidance by the court but it is not binding.

And it doesn't matter, decisions of the ECJ are final and cannot be appealed. (Although Courts in member states have asked the ECJ to reconsider decisions, but there is no requirement that they do so)

Compensation was always considered as a punitive measure, intended to stop those nasty airlines from cancelling flights for commercial reasons. If the cancellation was caused for reasons outside their control (ie extraordinary circumstances) then compensation shouldn't apply. However the EC/EP intentionally did not extend the exclusion to the duty of care (or to denied boarding, for that matter).

[TractorBoy]

TractorBoy

The preamble to the Regulation has no legal force, it is taken as guidance by the court but it is not binding.

Thanks for the clarification.

Then as the directive stands, Ryanair should have stumped up in the first place.

I still sympathise with MoL's situation as it does seem daft, but its in black and white.

Edit : But wouldn't the Montreal Convention apply here? Or does EU261 override it?

[The SSK]

Reg 261, the background (warning, long)

Regulation 261 had its origins in 1999, when the then Transport Commissioner Loyola De Palacio decided to do something about the airlines’ habit of bumping overbooked passengers. There was already a Regulation in place, with denied boarding compensation levels about half what they are now, but it had not been particularly effectual.

De Palacio actually wanted to outlaw overbooking, but was persuaded that a significant proportion of overbookings were caused by the practice of guaranteeing passengers who had missed their connection a seat on the next available flight – whether it was full or not. Since ATC delays were endemic at the time and the Single Sky project was gathering political momentum, this argument was taken on board.

However, it didn’t help that De Palacio’s chef de cabinet was bumped three times in quick succession (by the same airline, once with his family) so it was decided to ‘teach the airlines a lesson’ by upping the compensation levels massively – the proposal was that they should be double what they are now, i.e. to a maximum of €1200.

The airlines, predictably screamed blue murder, both at the punitive levels and the fact that the proposal had not gone through the usual consultative processes.

Then along came 9/11 and the financial pain the airlines went through in its immediate aftermath. Unable to help materially, the European Commission nevertheless agreed to shelve the DBC regulation, along with some other potentially damaging legislation.

Then at the end of 2001, totally unconnected with DBC, the airlines were making a fuss about the Galileo European GPS project. They didn’t want it and they didn’t need it, but they were the ones who would be paying for it. Trouble was, Galileo was a pet project of the EU and the EU didn’t like their pet project being rubbished. So a senior mandarin in the Transport Directorate decided to ‘punish’ (his own word) the airlines by dusting off the DBC proposal and reintroducing it into the legislative process.

Along the way, the proposal, which originally had been limited to denied boarding due to overbooking, extended the compensation provisions to cancellations for commercial reasons (i.e. lightly booked flights) and also a duty of care in the case of delays. The compensation levels were established at the current €250/400/600.

This was something the airlines (at least the established ones) could live with. It was already standard practice to give out meal vouchers in the case of long delays, and eventually to offer a night’s hotel. Commercial cancellations were not commonplace anyway and the higher DBC levels were rationalised as being in line with inflation compared to the existing ones which had been around for about ten years.

In any case, the proposal had to get past the Member States in order to become law. Some were in favour, some against and some were in the middle. The airlines did their sums and reckoned the proposal would be defeated – just. They didn’t reckon with the realities of EU politics, however. The Portuguese, who were among the waverers, were offered a bridge or some other big engineering project if they would vote Yes. Then when it came to the vote the Austrian minister switched from Yes to No when it dawned on her that she would be standing in upcoming elections and didn’t want any taint of anti-consumerism on her record.

So R261 was enacted in 2004. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the intentions of its framers were (a) to punish perceived malpractice (overbooking and commercial cancellation) and (b) to institutionalise what the best airlines did anyway, in terms of duty of care. There was never any intention to ‘illegalise’ aircraft unserviceability or to extend the concept of Denied Boarding to delays.

But the drafting of 261 was terrible, and so was the hype that the EU spun around it. They allowed passengers to believe they would get ‘compensation’ for delays and there was understandable frustration when they discovered they couldn't. The definition of exceptional/unforeseeable/unavoidable circumstances was vague. And the potential rewards for successful claims (a planeload at a time) was a magnet for quasi-legal middlemen looking to make easy money. Hence the string of cases referred to ECJ, who know squat about the way airlines operate and do not apply consultative processes to arrive at their decisions.

Returning to the original intention of R261; if an airline got its overbooking profile wrong it might have, say, three bumped passengers on a full flight – total compensation €1800 for longhaul. Or, let’s say, ten passengers on a cancelled 737 - €2500. What we are looking at now is the prospect of a quarter-million euro liability for a cancelled or heavily delayed 747 or A380 (double that if the return leg is affected). The reasons for the event could me many and varied – a catering truck could impact a trailing edge, an accumulation of little factors could lead to a crew going out of hours. No airline is going to stump up a quarter of a million if they think somebody else is to blame. I oredict that the majority of such cases will go to litigation – there is only going to be one winner in this – the lawyers.

[PAXboy]

Thanks The SSK, a very helpful explanation of history, unintended consequences and the worst kind of 'office' that thinks it knows better than the 'shop floor'.